This page contains public documents and filings from the arbitration proceeding between Youras Ziankovich and Wise US Inc. before the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
The arbitration arises from Wise’s restriction and termination of Claimant’s account, cancellation of international transfers, and alleged discriminatory treatment connected to Belarus-related compliance reviews.
The proceeding follows a federal court order compelling arbitration and staying the parallel federal action.
Arbitration Information
- Case: Ziankovich v. Wise US Inc.
- Forum: American Arbitration Association (AAA)
- Case Number: 01-26-0003-1278
- Type: Consumer Arbitration
- Filed: May 6, 2026
- Status: Pending
Background
On February 9, 2026, Claimant filed suit against Wise US Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Wise moved to compel arbitration under its customer agreement.
On April 14, 2026, the Court granted Wise’s motion and ordered the parties to proceed in arbitration. The federal action was stayed pending completion of the arbitration process.
Claimant continues to dispute the existence and enforceability of any arbitration agreement and participates in this proceeding under express reservation of rights.
Issues Presented
The arbitration involves allegations relating to:
- restriction and termination of financial services;
- cancellation of international transfers;
- compliance policies involving Belarus-related identifiers;
- discriminatory denial of services;
- breach of contract;
- breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
- defamation;
- unjust enrichment;
- arbitrary and capricious conduct;
- damages arising from loss of access to financial infrastructure.
Respondent denies all allegations and asserts that its actions were lawful, justified, and consistent with its contractual and regulatory obligations.
Claims Asserted by Claimant
The Statement of Claims seeks relief under the following causes of action:
Count I – Breach of Contract
Claimant alleges that Wise arbitrarily restricted and terminated access to financial services without valid cause.
Count II – Discriminatory Denial of Services
Claimant alleges that Wise applied internal risk controls using nationality-related indicators rather than individualized conduct.
Count III – Defamation
Claimant alleges that Wise created false implications that he was engaged in unlawful or prohibited activity.
Count IV – Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Claimant alleges that Wise acted in bad faith when restricting his account and transactions.
Count V – Unjust Enrichment
Claimant alleges that Wise benefited from its relationship with Claimant while denying access to services.
Count VI – Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct
Claimant alleges that Wise exercised discretion without clear standards, explanation, or consistency.
Damages Sought
Claimant seeks:
- compensatory damages;
- punitive damages;
- declaratory relief;
- injunctive relief; and
- additional relief deemed appropriate by the Arbitrator.
The Statement of Claims seeks damages in the amount of $350,000, with the final amount to be determined during the arbitration proceeding.
Respondent’s Position
Wise denies all allegations asserted by Claimant.
Wise contends that:
- its actions were lawful and justified;
- Claimant cannot establish any actionable claim;
- Claimant suffered no recoverable damages; and
- the Demand should be dismissed in its entirety.
Wise further asserts multiple affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations, failure to mitigate damages, waiver, estoppel, and other equitable defenses.
Counterclaim
On June 22, 2026, Wise filed a Counterclaim seeking recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions.
Wise alleges that the Demand contains claims that are legally and factually frivolous and relies on:
- Rule 44 of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules;
- Rule 57 of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules; and
- Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Claimant denies the allegations contained in the Counterclaim.
Reservation of Rights
Claimant expressly maintains that:
- no valid arbitration agreement was formed;
- participation in arbitration is compelled by court order;
- participation does not waive any jurisdictional objections;
- participation does not waive any contractual defenses;
- participation does not waive any rights to challenge any arbitration award.
Arbitration Docket
The documents below are presented in chronological order and include:
- Demand for Arbitration;
- Statement of Claims;
- Reservation of Rights;
- Answers and Defenses;
- Counterclaims;
- Procedural Orders;
- Motions;
- Exhibits;
- Correspondence authorized for publication; and
- Final awards, if issued.
Public Access and Transparency
The American Arbitration Association does not maintain a public docket comparable to PACER.
This website publishes selected filings and procedural materials to promote transparency, public understanding, and independent review of the dispute.
Disclaimer
This website is maintained for public information, transparency, research, and journalistic purposes.
Publication of a document does not imply agreement with any allegation, argument, position, defense, or counterclaim contained in that document.
Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice.
Related Federal Court Proceeding
The related federal court case is:
Ziankovich v. Wise US Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Case No. 4:26-cv-01024
Court filings and orders from that proceeding are available in the Federal Court Docket section of this website.